There have actually been surveys done on this here. And I have seen some informal surverys as well. In many ways the most popular answer may be "Don't know, not sure if I should care". Not saying that is my opinion or that most specialists hold that view, but I would say it reflects the viewpoint of a lot of working physicists.

I also prefer Many Worlds - and I am (or used to be) an instrumentalist/experimentalist. But I don't consider MW necessarily as "true", I only consider it as a very helpful mental picture to get some intuition for quantum-mechanical experiments. It avoids the difficult question of "what is a measurement" and "when does the wave function collapse" - and when you do so, all apparent paradoxes of EPR experiments and of retarded quantum erasers and so on disappear.

I also prefer Many Worlds - and I am (or used to be) an instrumentalist/experimentalist. But I don't consider MW necessarily as "true", I only consider it as a very helpful mental picture to get some intuition for quantum-mechanical experiments. It avoids the difficult question of "what is a measurement" and "when does the wave function collapse" - and when you do so, all apparent paradoxes of EPR experiments and of retarded quantum erasers and so on disappear.

Among physicists who do express preference for an interpretation, many-worlds interpretation is very popular.

So far many-worlds is my favorite. Is the fact that you have 12 interpretations of QM (and you may basically choose a favorite because one is not technically more correct than another) a major downfall to the theory?

How about the experimentalists? Are they content with one-point data in a double-slit experiment or do they care about measurement statistics in this world?

Remember that not everyone who is doing "QM experiments" are working in optics. The double slit is a nice "toy" but it is far from the only system where you can see "weird" quantum effects.
There are plenty of people (me included) who work on system where there is only a single "quantum object" and not an ensemble, this includes just about everyone working with single qubits (solid state systems, ion traps etc).

Personally I am in the "shut up and calculate" camp, and so is just about everyone else I work with.

...There are plenty of people (me included) who work on system where there is only a single "quantum object" and not an ensemble, this includes just about everyone working with single qubits (solid state systems, ion traps etc).
Personally I am in the "shut up and calculate" camp, and so is just about everyone else I work with.

The more you will work with your "single quantum object", the more data you will analyse, the better you will understand what an "ensemble" means. It is an ensemble of data about your single system, it goes without saying, and that's why it is sufficient to shut up and calculate.

The more you will work with your "single quantum object", the more data you will analyse, the better you will understand what an "ensemble" means. It is an ensemble of data about your single system, it goes without saying, and that's why it is sufficient to shut up and calculate.

True, but that is hardly a unique property of quantum systems. Most experiments involves taking averages of some sort at one point or another even if it just means increasing the integration time of your multimeter; but that has more to do with achieving a better signal-to-noise ratio than of any fundamental property of the system you are measuring.
There are certainly examples where one can -at least in principle- see the "quantumness" of a systems using a single shot readout. An obvious example being to first manipulate a single using MW pulses and then reading out its state using a measurement pulse. Now, the final result of such a procedure is obviously single-valued (since the qubit will end up in one of two states) but what comes before that (the manipulation) is very much a series of "quantum operations".
Any interpretation (or -in my case- lack of interpretation) should surely take into account not only what we see after the measurement pulse but also what is happening when we are manipulating the qubit; because even though we are not measuring we are certainly doing SOMETHING to the qubit with our pulses.

So far many-worlds is my favorite. Is the fact that you have 12 interpretations of QM (and you may basically choose a favorite because one is not technically more correct than another) a major downfall to the theory?

There is a problem with Born rule. THere were claims that it hadbeen succesfully derived from 'pure' QM formalism, and another claims, that the derivation was circluar.

But MWI is deterministic, so it is not clear what the 'probability' means in that context. So yes, there is some mystery, but I dont see it as a weakness, instead, it is a hint that we are missing something interesting about the reality.

Then, the 'appearence' of the classical world is based on the Quantum Decoherence. QD has some difficulties:

The choice of basic of decoherence is arbitrary. So you should define the basic based on some definition of the 'macroscopic system'. When 'macroscopic system' and basis are defined, you can define the 'branch'. But systems have different states, and in some branches we even dont exist! So the choice of a basic is branch-dependent.

But these difficulties are rather technical: we dont know how the brain works, but it is not a fatal probalem for physics. So we can not correctly and completely define a 'state' and 'basis' or complicated system, but it is not fatal.

And it is much better that that 'collapse' nonsense from CI - CI is absurd, it just cant be true.

...But MWI is deterministic, so it is not clear what the 'probability' means in that context. So yes, there is some mystery, but I dont see it as a weakness, instead, it is a hint that we are missing something interesting about the reality.

The missing part is simple: we have to recognize that even in a microscopic world we need many points of measurement to get some information. Information is not reduced to one point. On the contrary, the more points, the more accurate information about a system. Just like a photograph. The trick is that we think of microscopic world as of elementary, reducable-to-one-point world. It is this idea that fails.

The classical world also "appears" as the inclusive picture (sum of many different QM events). Again, a photograph is a right example.